( OT: I don´t think this representation of the Pacific War is quite correct. )

Well, but can we at least say that at times it's deemed more important to "be at war" then to win it? BEing at war does have a few advantages, politically as well as economically._________________Kassen

"War crazed" is an excellent description and I do think the craziness has a chemical basis. The Japanese were genetically similar to the enemy and relatively dissimilar to us. OK, chemically speaking the dissimilarities are very subtle, but DNA is mindlessly and insatiably selfish. When a group of apes is stressed it has been an advantage to go out and kill the "neighbors," statistically speaking. This has turned out to be a fairly strong mechanism for selection for chimps and humans. OSISTM

To sum it up: The Japanese Americans should be grateful we just caged them and didn’t follow older “traditions” and simply beat them to death.

wow, that's one of the most horrible things I've ever read in my life. Sounds more like nazi propaganda than something I though I'd read here. You should really learn more about DNA before you say stuff like this.

"War crazed" is an excellent description and I do think the craziness has a chemical basis. The Japanese were genetically similar to the enemy and relatively dissimilar to us. OK, chemically speaking the dissimilarities are very subtle, but DNA is mindlessly and insatiably selfish. When a group of apes is stressed it has been an advantage to go out and kill the "neighbors," statistically speaking. This has turned out to be a fairly strong mechanism for selection for chimps and humans. OSISTM

To sum it up: The Japanese Americans should be grateful we just caged them and didn’t follow older “traditions” and simply beat them to death.

I suppose you could see it that way, yes.

In that case there is no guilt and no acountablility which may be a advantage. Still; if that would be how some person or group would work then I would be in favour of having that person or group "caged".

Out of pure curiocity; I'm two meters, skinny, pale, my hair is basically a afro and my eyes are blue. How genetically similar or different would you estimate that the two of us are?_________________Kassen

wow, that's one of the most horrible things I've ever read in my life. Sounds more like nazi propaganda than something I though I'd read here. You should really learn more about DNA before you say stuff like this.

It was not phrased in a pleasant way, but the line of thinking to me seems to be more or less in line with Dawkin's book "the Selfish Gene" (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene ). It is controversial indeed, but there is more scientific evidence coming up lately that chalenges the concept of a free will. We, humans, will have to find ways to deal with that. Dealing with it by totaly giving up on the concept of personal responsibility does not seem to be the way to go to me, and I hope it was not Bachus' intention to go that way either._________________Jan
(yawning shifts perceived pitch, making things more interesting)

except we are not two different species. All humans are incredibly close genetically as we spread out relatively quickly. 50,000 years is a genetic heartbeat worth of time and not enough to create significant differences in the genes.

Especially in a country of immagrents with very few "native" people of our own, we should be above such rediculus comments as to imply US citizens with historical backround in one part of the world are somehow inferior to citizens from other historical backrounds.

I have always been blown away with how close genetically other primates are to us. It in some ways disturbs me that we can consider ourselves a "better" species than other mammals at all. This is taken to the extreme though at pointing out what small differences there are in humans as the cause for anything other than an excuse for hate.

I think Bachus was not advocating being a racist, but he was pointing out that when times are tough, racism is a natural behavior which is embedded in our species (and others) from the primal evolutionary struggle - something which goes as deep as our DNA and how it evolved.

I don't think racist behavior is 100% percent correlated to DNA. In a racist purge, Kassen's blue eyes might be overlooked because of his Afro hair, or vise versa. There is some inefficiency and inaccuracy in most genicidal outbreaks.

The extermination of the Native Americans night not have happened if the Native Americans looked more like Europeans. The German Americans didn't get put in camps because they looked like regular white Americans. The Japanese Americans, who by the way were much less of a secruty risk, were different looking; they got locked up. Maybe if they looked more different, they would have been treated even worse.

Oh boy. Hey, there is a greatness in America too. Let's not forget that._________________--Howard
my music and other stuff

It in some ways disturbs me that we can consider ourselves a "better" species than other mammals at all.

I share that feeling of disturbance with you here, I would not be surprised when Bachus would think so as well - but of course I can not speak for him._________________Jan
(yawning shifts perceived pitch, making things more interesting)

It seems I should make clear that what I feel about the internment of the Japanese citizens of the USA during World War II is shame and disgust. It was a violation of our most basic founding principles. * The shame however is not so much because I am also a USA citizen but because I am a human being. IMHO Anyone who does not feel shame for that act because they are not a citizen of the USA has a higher opinion of himself or herself than is deserved. Human beings are prone to be a vicious shitful lot. The stain is on all of us it is in our blood. The nazi's and Saddam Hussein make me feel shame for the same reason.

*

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If the principles of the constitution are observed only when it is easy and without sacrifice then they are meaningless. And, yea yea, I know, the USA has been late to some of the most important parties—abolition, suffrage, civil rights, etc. Nonetheless I still love the constitution and long to live in a world where those principles are observed more than I am able express.

Edit:

Let me add that I don't just bitch. I vote in every election for which I am eligible, I contribute to those political candidates and institutions I think will best limit our shitfulness, and I am a dues paying, card carrying member of the ACLU.Last edited by bachus on Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

( OT: I don´t think this representation of the Pacific War is quite correct. )

Well, but can we at least say that at times it's deemed more important to "be at war" then to win it? BEing at war does have a few advantages, politically as well as economically.

Sure, but I don´t think this specific war is an example of just that. This was a war between empires and at the time fighting such wars until the losing part surrendered was the norm. It is in a way quite laudable that this war ended in a surrender and not in "The Sacking of Japan"._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

The extermination of the Native Americans night not have happened if the Native Americans looked more like Europeans.

Well, if you consider north africa and the middle east as a part of Europe, and in this context this would make a lot of sense, then this can be argued. Another matter is that we have seen related "conflicts" in Europe/Middle East/ Africa and then between ethnic groups that basically looked more or less the same._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

the problem is that we were thrust into a situation where going against the principles of our society seemed like the best thing to do.

Well, it may be nominally against the "principles" but it's most certainly not going gainst the habbits and traditions of the U.S. Have you forgotten the Japanese that were put in camps without trial for -get this- being Japanese?

Good point, but I want to split it a little. I haven't slept in a while so I might get a little rambly.

I don't agree with the statement, "The United States has a tradition and is in the habit of ignoring its own rules in moments of chaos."

I do agree, though, that, "The citizens of the United States have a tradition and are in the habit of discriminating against minorities, particularly in times of national conflict (real or perceived, internal or external)."

I suspect that the previous statement is also true of several other nations (even "good" ones) to varyious degrees though my knowledge of world history is pitiful and I can't reinforce my suspicion. The US takes center stage on that issue above any others, however, since our arguably pretentious claim to respect is our alleged "freedom and equality".

IMHO, we define arbitrary (but potentially powerful) principles precisely because we are human and need reminders at critical moments of what is "right". We aren't any "better" than monkeys, but we sometimes successfully act like we are. The opposite is also true. The fact is that we are *not* monkeys no matter how similar we may be. We're certainly "just" animals like all the rest on Earth, but we're members of an exceptionally socially advanced species. Of course at this point for me, regression takes hold and I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth from invoking the absolutely absurd yet incredibly useful words "right" and "better". There's no objective measure of right or better. And there is also no "good" without "bad" - it's a pair that you just can't unbalance.

Am I off topic? I think it's relevant.

We're similar in many ways to the other animals that we observe on Earth. Many of us, much of the time, consider ourselves somehow superior to most animals because, for one example, we have more choices and more criteria and faculty by which to judge quality in general. It's not hard for a person in a moral bind to make a quick and imperceptible psychological leap from "being better than trifling animals" to "being better than trifling people"... the key being that "trifling" is completely subjective yet infinitely reinforcible via religion, an ideology like Bush's so-called "freedom", or idealistic zealotry without regard to the practical application of being human.

I don't want to downplay the suffering and injustice of those prisoners, and I absolutely abhor the Bush administration and many of the things it stands for. With that in mind, how can I possibly know if holding the prisoners in Guantanamo was the "wrong" thing to do or not? It's possible that it saved the world, and it's also possible that it was completely unnecessary. IMO, both are equally unlikely. So then the question becomes, "do we trust the people we've elected to make the right decision and to correct bad decisions *WHEN* they happen?" Well, unfortunately, I'm in the minority because I didn't vote for the people in charge. I guess I'm just screwed.

The extermination of the Native Americans night not have happened if the Native Americans looked more like Europeans.

Well, if you consdier north africa and the middle east as a part of Europe, and in this context this would make a lot of sense, then this can be argued. Another matter is that we have seen related "conflicts" in Europe/Middle East/ Africa and then between ethnic groups that basically looked more or less the same.

I think that it is not so much the smell (chemistry and it's outward physical concequences) of the “other” as it is any sense of otherness. I think because of our intellect we, as a species, have been able to generalize and abstract the biological antipathy toward otherness in an effective and deadly way, though “smell” remains the most powerful._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

I think Bachus was not advocating being a racist, but he was pointing out that when times are tough, .....

Of course he did, I read it like that anyway.

mosc wrote:

I don't think racist behavior is 100% percent correlated to DNA. In a racist purge, Kassen's blue eyes might be overlooked because of his Afro hair, or vise versa. There is some inefficiency and inaccuracy in most genicidal outbreaks.

Some inefficiency indeed. My father got classified as an "Ural Typus B" but he survived the camps anyway.

The modern term "racism" is interesting because how we use it now does not really tell much about how to understand history and little about what this was really were about. Look at british empire. In that case, savages weren´t entitled to much and there was a cultural chauvinism within an appaling class society which affected the poor and the unschooled halwits as much as the mindless savages. And do consider good old cosy Russia._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

I think that it is not so much the smell (chemistry and it's outward physical concequences) of the “other” as it is any sense of otherness. I think because of our intellect we, as a species, have been able to generalize and abstract the biological antipathy toward otherness in an effective and deadly way, though “smell” remains the most powerful.

Good points. The "otherness" can be about that "they" obviously aren´t "us" and them being them and not us won´t compute well for some reason.. and if they are sitting on resources we should have had access to, well.. then they simply have to go._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

...some of this discussion has gotten interesting. i laid off so i could collect my thoughts, and i feel there are a few things i must say. please forgive me if i'm simply beating a dead horse....i have no desire to "flame" anyone, much less have a "flame war". i'm very much aware that my political philosophy differs from much of this community in many areas. i do my best to be honest and accurate when i post (and when i criticize others' opinions), all i ask is the same in return. i enjoy much of what bachus posts, and if we were to meet in person i think we would be more likely to hug one another than start arguing.

1. "the blurb"- bachus, if you want to start a discussion of habeus corpus in general, that's great. if you do so by simply posting a blurb of a radio show that [the blurb] only mentions looking at things from the perspective of those in guantanamo, then i'm not sure how the discussion (here) is not about those in guantanamo. [ie, an interview with only me about electronic music might speak of electronic music in general, but is really about my perspective, and my thoughts on the subject. a general discussion of electronic music would have to include more than just my views.] it is really stretching the facts to quote the last sentince of the blurb to show that it is about habeus corpus and not guantanamo while cutting the begining of the sentince that says "In interviews with two former detainees"....this is distorting the meaning of the sentince by quoting out of context, and doesn't show a desire on your part to have a real discussion. if you wanted to speak generally about habeus corpus, you could have written your own synopsis of the show, given examples from the show, or even written your own take on things...instead, you posted the offical blurb, and complained bitterly when i commented on what you actually posted. i posted intelegently and carefully, i didn't offend or attack anyone. you put words in my mouth (that those in guantanamo are the "worst of the worst", which i never claimed, and in fact, i had mentoned that some of the prisoners seem to have been turned in by their own enemies). you accused me of a "false dichotomy" by asking the question, "how do we deal with this class of 'suspect'"...if habeus corpus is about holding suspects, and we are only speaking (as far as i can tell) only of the guantanamo detainees, "how we deal with them" seems to speak directly to the point. for my trouble of trying to have an intelegent discussion, you attacked me repeatedly. i have a thick skin, and i'm not whining...but this kind of approach doesn't foster open discussions. the issues i pointed out at the begining (that these prisoners would in the past have been killed instead of taken into custody) are extrememly relevent to the discussion of habeus corpus as it relates to the guantanamo detainees...you refused to even discuss this in passing (instead, you attacked me).

2.

Quote:

That sure seems consistent with my definition of fascist.

this comment (at least it seems to me) is either totally irrelevant (being human is consistent with your definition of being a facist...as would be a nation having a police force), or it's calling me a facist to some degree. if what you meant is a "slipperly slope" arguement, this could easily be done without using the "f" word in relation to my views...simply saying, "that is a dangerous path, as it can (and probably will) lead to abuses"...which i would agree with...but it has little to do with facism specifically (the various socialist, totalitarian, and other repressive governments that exist/existed throught the world were all guilty of holding people without charges or with fake charges). one could say that it is not good to run a red light...what you said was equivilent to "running a red light is consistent with my definition of being a moron" (i'm trying to avoid the more obvious racial stereotypes). if you said to my face "your views sure seem consistentwith my definintion of facist", i would interpret that as calling me a facist...and somehow i doubt you would say that to my face (i don't mean that i would hurt you...i weigh 125lbs, i mean that it would be such a rude thing to say to someone that your manners would prevent it).

with that, i'm off this...i don't think i can express myself any more clearly.

Edit: Edit: Sorry, I shouldn't have butt in or imposed myself. Please discuss whatever you like.

Edit: Sorry to pull a post out from under you again, elecktro. For the record I deleted my post because it was a counter-productive way to express my simple sentiment that I was out my mind and out of line when I decided to play forum cop. Chalk it up to sleep deprivation and stress, I guess.Last edited by Kookoo on Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

I suspect that the previous statement is also true of several other nations (even "good" ones) to varyious degrees though my knowledge of world history is pitiful and I can't reinforce my suspicion. The US takes center stage on that issue above any others, however, since our arguably pretentious claim to respect is our alleged "freedom and equality".

Absolutely.
It's not like the Scandinavians or the Dutch are perfect; they are far less perfect then their image would indicate but they don't go beating their chest about being "the home of the free" ot the world's policemen either while the U.S. do.

If one goes off to imply one is more "free" then the rest or somehow morally superior then one's going to be held to higher standards and with the U.S. I think it's safe to say that those higher standards simply aren't there. It would be quite remarkable if they were, realy.

From that perspective I think it's quite amusing that China recently sope out against the human rights violantions in the U.S.; I think that's one of the most amusing moves in recent world politics.

it's all just marketing; Shell also advertises their research into environmentally friendly techniques. Nobody buys that. Strangely many americans seem to buy the U.S. marketing about "freedom"._________________Kassen

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.